![Image](http://pjmedia-new.pjmedia.netdna-cdn.com/tatler/user-content/31/files/2015/03/Occupy_Tea_Party.jpg)
Think so?
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
I wonder how one could create a law (which would never go anywhere because it would be the end of congress politicians' real source of wealth) that would exclude corporate lobbying but allow constituents to still get their congressman to move on issues of real legitimate importance to the citizenry.Try to 'lobby' a U.S. Congressman and you are in violation of Federal law.
That is not true. "Access", as in to have your concerns voiced, etc. does not require what we know as lobbiests.callmeslick wrote:agree with all the above......the problem is that bit about citizen access. To maintain that, you can't get rid of lobbying. ....
yes, and?Will Robinson wrote:Slick, the last 25 years the Supreme Court has recieved an equal number of appointments from democrat and republican presidents.
not in any way that any other recent one has......generally around the developing global economy.So where is this "guise of conservatism" favoring multinational businesses be on a par with our citizens? Isn't the current president trying to impliment international authority over our citizens in many ways?
no, the nature of decisions from the court of the past 20 years have completely upended the primacy of the individual in the system. No matter what one wishes to see as government grinding away individual rights or overregulating individuals, it was traditionally seen that citizens have rights that larger entities of a commercial nature do not. With the campaign finance and Eminent Domain rulings, as the most salient of a few, the individual citizen has very little say in the conduct of government, the makeup of available candidates for election and input into decision making. Not trying to make it partisan, by party, but definitely by ideology. This may not be 'true' conservatism, but it is in line with the thinking and end goals of the modern American conservative movement.I think you are just trying to spin up some partisan bogeyman.
quite true. But those are relatively few and far between.woodchip wrote:Not all corporations have a large pool of stock holders. Some are wholly owned by one or two individuals.
well, I have, because it is the same thing. Unless every stockholder/union member agrees to give X dollars to a campaign, it should be forbidden by the larger organization to commit funds.Spidey wrote:I would assume corporate money speaks for the board members, not stock holders.
Same problem exists in the union example x10 because the money comes directly from members instead of company profits.
And I also notice those who get freaked out about corporations…never mention unions.
because for some stupid reason, we think more money = better brainpower.Vander wrote:If money = free speech, why do we allow a millionaire more speech than a minimum wage worker?
Seems like a good question on the surface, unfortunately the solution means implementing limits.Vander wrote:If money = free speech, why do we allow a millionaire more speech than a minimum wage worker?
Sorry, you are right, I thought you were defending the 'corporate donor's' right to have a much greater level of influence.Spidey wrote:...
Will…
Corporations are also expected to have ethics, my only point was don’t treat something like a person, and you won’t have to call it a person.
Just in case you think my comment was condoning stupidity. (just the opposite)